Microsoft is embracing 'cancer' to help ensure Windows survives server-room consolidation.
The company has released 20,000 lines of Windows kernel code under version two of the GPL. Microsoft called the license it once hated "the community's preferred license".
How things have changed. Back in 2001, Microsoft's chief research …

COMMENTS

what's the catch?

Call me paranoid, but I note they're using version 2 of the GPL, not version 3 which protects people from submarine patents. So they get this stuff to infect non-Microsoft code, then turn around and start suing people. That's a very Microsoft move right there.

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. It worked in the 80's. It worked in the 90's. I'm guessing it will work for them in this decade as well, and people will just keep helping them make it work by being trusting fools.

Gandhi was right

What's the catch ?

Says a lot about their reputation that the first thought that comes ot mind is "what's the catch ?" What patent traps are they laying ?

Still, it's a small step in the right direction in many respects. That the all mighty Micro$oft suddenly feels threatened enough to be forced into this means that Linux (and FOSS in general) is clearly making inroads into their virtual monopoly. I think we can be certain that they wouldn't be doing it if they didn't feel under threat.

20,000 lines under the sea?

Re: what's the catch?

"Call me paranoid, but I note they're using version 2 of the GPL, not version 3 which protects people from submarine patents."

I'm not sure, but it might be because the Linux kernel itself is not moving to GPL v 3 anytime soon, apparently. Or would it be possible to mix the two in the kernel? I would think so, but haven't read much about it lately.

Windows as host

The problem with hosting virtual machines on Windows is the write latency of NTFS is very last decade. Microsoft could do with front-ending onto one or two modern filing systems next of which many are much better performers for this sort of thing (reiser4, EXT4, etc.).

Oh, and anecdotally I've only ever actually lost data with NTFS (and FAT32 before that), despite using Windows and Linux fairly evenly in a clustered environment. Probably just bad luck, but it would seem to hint at the relative fragility.

So you want to run Linux?

sure - just pay MS for running an Windows Server 8 on the machine and you can run Linux on top of that. So if that's a server you presumably will have to pay for licenses for more than 5 (10?) connections to that Linux

Now I see what they're doing - trying to tax you for using Linux!

Just make sure you have linux compatible hardware (easy at server level) and you can do it for free!! Unless you want MS to 'support' your Linux distribution....

There is no "catch"

First of all, Linux Kernel is GPL v2 - there is nothing inherently "evil" with Microsoft releasing Linux kernel code with the same license as the rest of the Linux Kernel. I will skip the GPL v3 "patent protection" nonsense, even Linus Torvalds is not buying it...

As for the hidden agenda, there is none - Microsoft cannot ignore the simple fact that there are tons of cheap small Linux web servers used for e.g. hosting plans, etc... Those are all going to be virtualized and hosted on more powerful multi-core systems.

So, instead of doing nothing they can at least try to get the money for the hosting OS - and for this, they need the client VMs to run as fast as possible, so they can have an edge over e.g. VMWare.

This is actually a "win win" for Microsoft and Linux - Microsoft cannot ignore reality, they certainly cannot make all those Linux servers in question switch to Win Server 2008 - but they can at least try to get something by offering to host those systems on a Hyper-V server.

Linus didn't like GPL V3 - too restrictive

GPL V3 is a political tool to make everything free. If I remember correctly Linus didn't like it and won't use it because implementing it was too much of a PITA and came with an agenda he wasn't comfortable with.

If these drivers mean that I can use NTFS external HDD without them having to be rebuilt every month or so then I'm cool with it. The OSS drivers don't work properly if you do lots of reads and writes (as in rsync to them) and you have to plug the disk into a Windows machine when you find you can write to it any more and repair it. Got boring very quickly so I reformatted to the ext3 file system.

Being able to use a file system that can be easily used from either OS is great, although it would be nice of MS supported the common Unix/Linux ones out of the box, wouldn't it?

Do. Not. Trust.

MS have a long and inglorious history in underhanded legal attacks. I would want to see signed and sealed documentation that they will never use any line of code they release as the source of any legal action now or at any point in the future.

Steve Ballmer should then make a public statement reiterating the fact that MS will never use this code (or subsequent code) to sue or get any kind of injunction against anyone using the code, or anything based on the code, in perpetuity.

Maybe then, just maybe, I'll believe them. Until such times, this code should be treated as highly dangerous and not integrated into anything.

@raving angry looney

Ya know, ten years ago, I'd whole heartedly agree, but these days, that's the last thing MS would do.

Mainly because Apples lawyers would have beaten them to the punch by several weeks, while google continued to violate any and all copyright laws, soaking up the fines like some gargantuan behemoth wading its way through lilliput...

Re Where's the catch?

Quick moves by the tin-foil red-hat brigade, there! The truth is, GPL3 is badly worded (see http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/114178) and no-one in the trying-to-make-a-profit-from-investing-in-our-own-rather-than-distributing-others software industry would touch it with a barge pole.

It's *just possible* that El Reg's analysis is correct and this is a business move to avoid loss of sales in marginal markets.

As for 'submarine patents', dream on - releasing the code as open source freely available for use provides a clear case of estoppel against any subsequent prosecution the mustachioed devils in Redmond are plotting.

language

As someone mentioned, this is just MS's attempt to monetize Linux. Also, I think it a cheap way for MS to cheapen F/OSS. They pollute the F/OSS atmosphere by GPLing only bits and drabs and only in a way that points the clueless back to Redmond.

Ballmer, if you were anymore transparent, you'd be in a bigger freakshow than MS.

re: gpl v2 / gpl v3

According to the article this is Linux code (at least some of it) and it will be part of the next Linux kernel release. So this is both MS code and Linux code.

Where's the catch? That's a bit like asking where the catch is on a fishing hook - the whole thing is the catch. According to the article the only purpose of this is to ease use of Linux on Windows. The catch is that you have to use Windows as your main operating system. I don't see them offering similar concessions in their own operating system to make run better in Linux based VMs. No doubt the will have a way to charge you for each copy of Linux hosted by Windows - they'll probably make it more expensive than running Windows instances on the same server.

I'm pleased

It's a good announcement - maybe this week's furore over kernel issues in Linux has made MS realise that Linux is a proper OS like Windows - after all it's now got OS-level security issues (just like Windows) too! :D

(Before the Knights of Linux start firing up the penguin-oil fueled flamethrowers, please note the icon I used).

Seriously though, this is to be cautiously welcomed, but I don't think it's going to persuade me to switch from running Windows (XP and 7RC - Vista sukz) on Linux to running Linux on Windows.

@Perspective (AC 20th Jul 21:52) "Linix wishes it was as widespread as cancer." Not sure about "Linix", but "Linux" is very much out there now, and it's probably about as easy to spot as cancer - so deal with that! :p

Linux meerkats doing what meerkats do

Glad to see nothing has changed in the average Linux user mindset since the last time I looked down the back of the fridge. I doubt I could find a more childish, ill-informed bunch of mutually masturbating misfits outside of Qom.

Next time, I hope Microsoft let you write your own fucking device drivers. Although, judging by the fun and interesting way the kernel is apparently handling null pointers these days, perhaps that's not such a good idea for your users.

@Linux meerkats doing what meerkats do

Sorry, is there a FoTW competition going on somewhere that you decided to enter?

The device drivers that MS have released are (afaik) for the virtual devices that Hyper-V provide so if MS didn't provide them, then either the Linux community would do it, or folks would just avoid Hyper-V in favour of the more popular virtualization solutions - e.g. VMware, VirtualBox, ... So is that clear enough now - do you understand what's going on?

Maybe it's just me mellowing but the posting's on this article so far seem to be pretty wide ranging and, on the whole reasonable. Yours - of course - being the exception to this standard... E.g. if you haven't been to Qom then I suggest you don't go casting aspersions; Linux users seem to get on pretty well, and given where it 'hides' maybe you're an inadvertant user yourself.

Meanwhile, I think you'll find your bud's on the redneck IRC channel are missing you - better get back there quick and leave this site to the grown ups.

Apologies to all others for cluttering up the comments area with something that ain't about the article.

Meanwhile...

the title of DOOM!

@Tom38:

Actually that is NOT a part of the license itself, but a statement of WHAT licence the code is under. Many projects do NOT include the "later versions" component, because they do not want to use a license for which they dont know the terms (which any lawyer worth (his/her/it's) weight in salt will tell you would be reccomended). Additionally any software released under those terms can be redistributed with the "any later version" component dropped. ("I accept this code under the terms of the GPL 2, and redistribute under the same terms")

@what's the catch?

The GPL 2 and the GPL 3 are not compatible licenses (because the GPL 3 contains additional restrictions over the GPL 2). For MS to release kernel-code, it MUST be under the GPL 2 (as that is what the kernel is under).

That said, there is the interesting theory of "what happens with the binary modules like nvedia's drivers if someone with the cash decides to see if that's a GPL violation." Until now noone had the money, intrest and legal standing. MS just gained legal standing. Think they might be interested?

That's also why I like the CDDL, no question that you can use modules under other licenses.

Choice of licence

It occurs to me that the choice of GPLv2 only leaves the BSD crowd out. Had the timebomb^Wextension^Wsource been released under the 3-clause BSD licence, then they could have taken it too, and it could _still_ be used in Linux without problems.

The Linux Cancer

I've heard it said, though it is technically awry, that a baby is the only positive & wonderful cancerous growth. I won't get into why but that Linux cancer may well be the only positive thing to come out of computing OSs in a long while. Microsoft is more focused on fixing an OS that doesn't work just enough that they keep "the great unwashed" in nappies for a long time.

The problem is that the "the great unwashed" are getting smarter & hence M$ is finding it harder to build in the flaws that need to be updated with the next version of Windows each time. Their growing litigious support network has no doubt proven their financial worth on paper but done nothing purposeful in aiding M$'s sad software development. Thus it would seem that Linux gets to hold the crown after turning the throne with the holey seat in the cubicle into a royal & holy seat & leave M$ to it's ever-reducing box; you-know the one with the walls coming in on them.

They've thrown excrement & everything else at Linux with many of the walls too close & they got spattered with their own muck. Now they are playing nice with Linux. Why would they do that? To put Linux in a soft & cosy place so they can turn around & sue their butts off. Probably! Doesn't matter ultimately because Linux will stay the course & M$ will fail in the long run anyway. Too far down the line for my liking but they will die one day.

Bye-bye Stevie & good riddance. The only thing you were good for was an embarrassing laugh.

psyq, How Dumb Are You?

... the dumbest thing is why would anyone who could set-up a Linux ISP believe it worthwhile to run this via a Windows server virtual environment where everything is under threat by virus & spyware. If I can setup a Linux-based ISP server then I can damn-well set up a virtual environment under Linux using an open-source version & run as many Linux OSs as I want & Windows as well, all for nothing. Well the Windows did cost something. The goose that does what you just stated is a MCSE stoolie that believes the catch-cry from M$ that the MCSE version is easier to set-up. It has to run well as well. It needs to be able to run without being open to so many threats.

You goose. Linux doesn't get zip from this & as someone else stated earlier .NOT or the Novell version of C# is another "be wary" or tread carefully. Personally I don't see why anyone would want to use it at all.

None of these things actually helps Linux's forward progression. All these are doing is assisting Ballmer, that's Stevie "I'm gonna f**king kill Google" (whilst throwing a chair against a wall) for when dodos fall for their sudden change of warmth & kindness by suck-in & destroy tactics. If you believe otherwise you are a turkey in for one litigious experience.